FIrst of your assertion that a statement that is inherently conditional is not binding is simply not true. IT may or not be binding. I don;t think it should be binding. But the people who make rules don't always see it that way. In my room it is in fact binding if you say "Whatever you bet I will call" and your opponent bets you are bound to a call. I doubt my room is the only room with that rule and in fact I suspect its not uncommon.


If I understand you correctly. If its my turn and I'm thinking about what to do, and I drop a chip and it rolls into the betting area .... I have bet.... because we can't be mind readers.....

I agree that gauging intent can be tricky. But there are times when it is clear. And actions should be viewed in context and part f this context was that the player was not making a bet ... he was indicating a call.

Gauging intent is part of what we do in everyday life. You make these assessments all the time. Sometimes you might be wrong.... but still we don;t really consider it mind reading. If a person bumps into you in the hallway .... your reaction is probably different if you think it was accidental than if you think it was intentional. You don;t think of this as mind reading. If a guest in your house knocks a drink over you probably react differently if you think he did it intentionally. You don;t think of this as mind reading because you make these assessments not based on a perceived mystical knowledge of what they are thinking, but rather from the clues of context.

We define crimes with refernce to the "mens rea" of the actor. If you are leaving your office and garb a hat that looks just like yours and head out the door ....thinking its your hat ... you have not committed a larceny. On the other hand if grab that same hat and you know its not yours you have commiteed a larceny (assuming the other elements of the crime are met).

And accordingly we send people to prison, or even to death based on our assessments of their intentions .... based on contextual evidence. We don;t think of this as mind reading. And if we can destroy or end a man's life based on these assessments ... well I think we can make a decision about a poker game.

Again I'm not saying intent is the only issue. What I am saying is context counts..... and the clues that tell us a players intent are part of the context.

There's a problem with making such a conditional statement binding. What if the hero checks? Since the villain has committed to a call, can the villain now bet since hero has bet zero?

You're blaming the rolling of the chip on the player who drops it when the roll is random. That's very different from a player deliberately placing chips in the betting area.

You cannot call the bet that does not exist, and the conditional call is, as stated, problematic at best. But I do agree that the context matters.

The word here is usually not "assessment", but "assumption" unless the other has given some clear clue (context again). I'll leave it at that.

I don't like the rule. And whether it precludes a bet if the other player checks would also be a product of house rule. I do not know that would be rule din my room as the rule book doe snot specifically address it and I have never seen it happen.


It seems to me you are mind reading. After all. Maybe the player was trying to roll the chip into the betting area? how do you know that this was random?


common ground



But we don't just assume. Sometimes we may make assumptions. But we usually look at the circumstances and assess them. And my point in this discussion is that the players words are the clear clue. You might assume with no other facts that the guy who bumps into you dd it by accident. But in watching him walk and his attitude and facial expressions, and his reactions you might make the assessment that it was intentional. Some people may operate the other way... assume malice unless they see evidence to the contrary.

I would certainly say he had bet if his words were "Look its going all in one way or the other." because that indicates .... if you bet all in I am calling. If you bet less than all in i am raising all-in, and if you don't bet I am betting all-in.

I was playing in a game in one of the larger rooms in Las Vegas about a month ago. HU pot. Well Player 1 was tanking on a bet, Player 2 said 'I'm going to call whatever you bet,' in my opinion Player 2 said it in a somewhat joking manner, but as you said we can't mind read intent.

Player 1 ended up shoving, and Player 2 decides she didn't actually want to call Player 1's bet afterall. The dealer informs her that she may be obligated to call as the dealer believes the 'I'm going to call anything you bet,' was a binding statement.

Floor is called, and ultimately agrees with the dealer and tells Player 2 she will need to pay off the full all in bet of Player 1.

I was surprised about this, as I agree with your stance on it.

And like I said this was one of the larger, more heavily trafficed rooms in Vegas to boot.

Ok, clearly it's room dependent.

I wonder if situations like this is why Shoe in Baltimore made the rule, no talking about action or the hand while in the hand. Comments/showboating like this are prohibited.

Makes it boring though...

It is hard for me to imagine that there is any room anywhere that would allow villain to simply pull back all of his chips if OP checks. To me, the conditional statement is now moot and the physical act of pushing the chips forward becomes a bet of whatever amount is out there.

This sounds most likely... God, my shove was so bad lol

Unless psandman is the floor

My room also has a line rule enforced. That doesn't mean it is the same as at Aria though. If you checked and then he decided to check and I was called to the table, then he would be betting whatever he put across the line. The important part there being that I was called to the table. If you don't say anything and the dealer doesn't seem to care then I don't get called and it stands as check/check.

This depends on the floor/room. It was a conditional statement. Not always binding. Based on the fact that he said I will call whatever you bet AND pushed his stack over the line, I would make him call. Again, this depends on if I get called to the table. If he tries to fold and you don't say anything, then there's a chance I don't get called and he is allowed to fold.

I think that those who say that it shoudl be enforced as a bet because the verbal action became "moot" or impossible and that therefore the physical action is know what governs are stretching to to do this because they don;t like the players conduct.... becuase they just feel its bad and should be punished.

I wonder if we set the scenario up in a way where the player does it innocently they would apply the same logic.

let us suppose that on the River the action is on Player A and he is thinking about what to do ..... And while he is thinking he picks up a $100 chip and he is still thinking. At the same time a guy is walking Player telling a loud story to his buddy and he says "I bet $100" (he wasn't being a douche.... he was just talking to his buddy not trying to cause any problems). But player B sees player A with $100 chip in his hand and Hears "I bet $100" which he thought was said by player A. Both Player A and B are innocent of any wrongdoing. Player A did not try to mislead anyone and Player B honestly believed that Player A announced a bet.

Player B in response throws out a $100 chip while at the same time loudly and clearly saying "Call".

Now the dealer and players realize what has happened.

Do you say .... Since Player A never bet, Player B could not call so his verbal declaration is null and void leaving only the physical act of throwing out a chip and therefore he has bet $100 and the option is no on Player A who can check, and then raise the $100 bet? (player B is getting the worst of this no matter what because we can't unring a bell --- but are you really going to use this logic to put Player B in a spot where he can be check raised on his attempt to call a bet?)

Now I get the interest of fairness arguments .... but if you make a decision here ion the inteterest if fairness think about why you feel its fair or not fair in these situations.....

I hate the sort of stupid chatter about hands that teh villian in the OP was doing. I find it annoying and time wasting ..... but I do not feel it is unfair or an angle....... I think deception in the betting phase of the game is part of poker and heads up this stuff is fair game.... Which is probably why I don;t feel we need to find a way to punish the player.

Others of you clearly think this was an angle, so you are looking for a way to punish the player.....

I get that and its fine .... but if your going to do that well then just say thats what you are doing instead of making this really awful argument that the player bet by physically putting out his chips as he announced a call.

Throwing out a chip and saying call is different than saying I will call whatever you bet and shoving your entire stack across the line.

One is thinking he called a bet and acting accordingly. The other is saying he will call any bet and then putting all his chips in the pot, not wise. Plus this is after the turn. Not the river.

One is an accident and one is intentional. Acting like they are the same is pointless.

Both are intend to call bets. Neither of them are intended to be bets.

If the room makes the conditional call binding then the OP was in the catbird seat because he could bet as much as he wanted and know he is getting called. If the room says the conditional call is not binding then it shouldn't be recharacterized as a unconditional bet to make it binding

How do you know he didn't intend to bet when he pushed out his chips. Either way, I digress. My ruling wouldn't change tho.

he never angled you.
if you check he has to bet.
he could have folded when you bet.

Because he said he was calling....

If he didn't say that then we simply be talking about an out of turn bet. The whole reason for this thread is because he said he was calling.

This is an angle nowadays? Sounds like the worst angle ever. If you have a strong hand, you can now check and force him to bet the $100 (since that's the ruling in most rooms), and if you have a weak hand you can now check instead of firing another bullet which would almost never get a fold.

Dude basically reverse freerolled himself and it's an angle?

In most rooms, action out of turn is binding if the action doesn't change. So if you bet, he has the option to take it bet. If you check, his bet stands. I believe Aria follows this rule but I could be wrong. You can always ask the dealer is you want to know.

They usually aren't, but you're at the discretion of the floor and they could be ruled binding.

This is what I thought at the time. Makes me feel better about my shove if this is true.. Still probably have checked tho..

Yeah not an angle. Just put that in the title to keep it from becoming too verbose. I agree with you.

Nope, not at all. In fact, I have no problem whatsoever with what villain said and did. That doesn't change the fact that he pushed his chips across the line with the intent to wager those chips one way or another. As I wrote previously, I just can't imagine any scenario where after hero checks, a floor says no problem, villain, feel free to pull all those chips back into your stack and bet a smaller amount, a larger amount, or even check back if you want.

And as for your hypothetical scenario, I don't see any comparison whatsoever. At the very least, it can be characterized as a gross misunderstanding.

I don't understand how you even remotely think you got angled though.

He said "whatever you bet I call". You shoved... and he called.

It seemed you thought the context of the angle would be that he wanted a free showdown and was trying to induce a check, when in reality if there was an "angle" it would be inducing someone dumb enough to jam here with ace high into some goober who's clearly not folding

WP to villian, induced a shove

I'm OP and I agree with u lol

Not in my case. It's just a different way of thinking.

Clarification: Yes I think it was somewhat obnoxious, but it was clearly behavior designed to induce a check for someone with a hand they know could easily lose. Meh on the "bad behavior" part.

No for me it's a very literal and (I hope) logical way of thinking, based on certain premises. In other words - I'm a programmer, and I tend to break things down into a specific order of questions based on specific variables.

The overriding premise in this case, for me, is that you cannot call a bet that does not exist. You can certainly call a bet out of turn, but that can only occur if the bet exists.

Since no bet has been made, no call can occur, so no verbal statement about an invalid action can be binding. If he said bet, it would be binding.

Since he put chips out, and his verbal cue was invalid, only the physical action can be considered. Ergo - he bet out of turn.

The question "is there reason to believe that gross misunderstanding applies here" is always a valid one.

Gross misunderstanding. Action can be retracted.

The guy put all his chips out.
If he wanted to induce a check and got what he wanted to induce that means he was all in.

The forever and a day writing of the rule has always been (and often posted in older rooms): Verbal declarations in turn are binding.

1. Player said he'd call anything OUT OF TURN. It's not binding.

2. His chips shoved out into the pot are key to two scenarios that are ruling dependent. How that ruling comes down from a floor or shift mgr is always debateable and subject for debate.

3. When checked too, the action has not changed, and those chips could be forced to stay out as a bet. In all likelyhood, at Aria, this would be the case.

4. Op makes a bet, floor dependent, chips could stay in the pot as a raise, call or be allowed to be pulled back since action has changed. However, in nearly 100% of cases, a warning and kitn will be included.

So, in the end, much like how any hand in poker is played, it depends.

This is a good example of a situation where the ruling will vary from room to room, and usually will vary from dealer to dealer and floor to floor in the same room. Even the same floor person might rule inconsistently. The situation is unique.

Your only recourse to protect yourself is to ask for the floor before taking any action at all, then continue under the watchful eye of the floor.

You cannot rely on the dealer; there's a reasonable chance that the dealer and floor will not agree here. The dealer might not explain the situation accurately, or he might have missed it completely if he's chatting or if the basketball game is interesting. You need to know where you stand.